Jump to content

Padraic Conway

LSP_Members
  • Content Count

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Padraic Conway

  • Rank
    Hooked For Life
  • Birthday 05/08/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Looking out across Northumberland

Recent Profile Visitors

268 profile views
  1. When I read the item I seriously considered going to the model railway show mentioned in the text. And I don't have any model trains or any interest in the subject normally, but that layout is impressive!
  2. Vincent Radu's right. So, in the interests of board harmony, can we draw a line under our previous disagreement and move on? Padraic
  3. Thank you Matt. However I'm bowing out from this aspect of what has been a fascinating thread (until the last few pages) as both the tone and the content of these final pages (your measured comments above aside) have become, in my view, an increasingly dismissive monologue. I've constructively asked Vincent a lot of valid questions (about his sources of evidence, his making the evidence fit the facts (rather than the other way around), and his selective use of evidence to support his case (he's delighted to draw upon his own pair of Fw parts but gave both Jerry Crandall and Mark Proulx short shrift on p6 when they made contributions about their parts - and they haven't returned) and he has simply ignored all of these points. And been impolite too. As an academic, I've always been deeply suspicious when an idea that cannot be questioned (because the advancer believes they know they are correct) is advanced. All ideas should be subject to constructive and polite challenge, and either emerge stronger (or amended) as a consequence. Mods - no intention here to cause any offence. To me this is simply like being in a pub where the chap at the bar is getting louder and louder... I'm moving into the snug as we say here. Padraic
  4. Great stuff there Chek! Airfix Spitfire to Rareplanes KC-97L? Respect! That's some skillset you have there.
  5. I totally agree with all of your comments Thierry. I am simply making the point that a simple explanation, with the least speculation and fewest assumptions, is the more likely explanation where two or more are competing. In this case, the simple approach being that exterior paint was applied directly to bare metal without any primer, rather than the paint being reformulated late in the war for single application use (as Vincent maintains). I think this aspect of this thread has run its course anyway. I'm a great enthusiast for constructive debate normally, but here this is not a real debate.
  6. Please Vincent. I am reading what you write. And I am being polite at the same time. And not being difficult, but trying to establish fact rather than opinion. However I've not come across any independent evidence to support your idea that RLM76 was a finish coat first and then became a primer at wars end. Your ideas are interesting, but not, in my view, supported by independent evidence. Earlier in this thread you stressed the importance of well established researchers contributing to this debate. Do you have any primary source for your theory of 76 becoming a primer with a special protective formulation? Perhaps an RLM instruction to paint manufacturers to ensure this? You've made a lot of statements above about 76 composition changing as the war progressed, and colours 'being super easy to get'. Where is the evidence for this? You may have access to information that I am unaware of. I note that your list of 'passivization' paints above doesn't include a 7122.76. Or, is it as I suggested above, that desperation eventually forced the use of topcoat paints (chemically unaltered) as a single coat onto bare metal? More likely I feel. Saves time, resources and money getting the airframes out of the door and into the air. With the next step being the abandonment of paint altogether (as we know started to happen). Remember, Occam's Razor... I wonder if the pending publication that Jerry Crandall referred to some pages back will shed any further light on this? Or if any of his preserved aircraft parts will support your idea?
  7. So perhaps it was very effective both with or without a primer undercoat? There's certainly photographic evidence of RLM76 applied directly to bare metal late war (thinking of Bf109G wings in handling crates at Prague airport) and RLM81 applied to the metal sides of Me262s (Yellow 3 of KG(J)54 - the subject of the Experten decals) where the panel sealant can be seen through the green paint.
  8. Thanks Vincent; that seems like a fair suggestion to consider. It's noteworthy that we don't appear to see much evidence of flaking/worn paint on contemporary Luftwaffe pictures (I'm thinking of the degree to which Japanese aircraft suffered from flaking/worn paint in the final years of the war), so when an airframe was painted, it was done to a fairly high standard by and large. Perhaps its also possible that towards the end of the war the expected lifetime of the airframe might be measured in days, rather than weeks or months? Then we see increasing tolerance of bare metal or incomplete painting of airframes (especially Me262s, Fw190s and He162s). It would be interesting to know how well RLM76 (or any RLM paint) adhered to bare metal, as opposed to a primer paint. Padraic
  9. I was simply pointing out that the ambient lighting may have contributed to the perceived colour shift. I appreciate that English may not be your first language Vincent, but the tone of your reply is a little tetchy. The grey panels could simply be as they are because they are at a differing angle to any ambient lighting. What I'm trying to do here is to consider all the possible evidence. I have no problem at all in accepting that RLM66 came in one or more colour variations; as Matt has pointed out, most of us accept that RLM76 came in differing colours. However, I'm not buying any contemporary verbal description of colours at all; that's not evidence. You don't want to revisit the old 'Duck Egg Blue' debate I'm sure? By the way Vincent, what's the source for your statement that RLM76 became a primer? As opposed to a finishing colour applied directly to bare metal?
  10. Great thread! The first I can recall building myself was the FROG Spitfire Ia QV@K from the 'Battle of Britain' double set with the JU88A in the same box. My Dad helped me paint the Spitfire (I cant recall what happened to the JU88), complete with camo and a gloss red spinner. That particular boxing is worth big £££ now! Other rarities that I wish I hadn't got my 10 year-old hands on at about the same time were the Airfix SRN Hovercraft, their 1/72 Hawker P1127 and their Saunders-Roe SR73. Bought for 2/6 each at Woolworths and I butchered them all! For a good few years afterwards I believed that the SR73 was a then-current front-line RAF fighter. Most recent completion would be the Planet Models He 1077 Julia in 1/48. Modelling has come a long way in that timeframe. We are so fortunate to have the choice and quality of the products we can now access.
  11. That's an interesting and well-argued hypothesis there Troy, and merits careful thought. You certainly have me thinking about this. I also noted the wooden side console on the Ta152 and the colour differences between this and the sides and similar differences within the He162 cockpit. An issue with the cockpit pictures above from Vincent might be the lighting they were taken under as fluorescent strip lighting (which is common in storage buildings) is well known for its green colouration that it can add to colour pictures. I don't know what lighting was used, but clarification if possible would be helpful. It doesn't seem to be daylight. Padraic
  12. I don't see how 'it's way more likely to be a formulation issue' - you need to provide some evidence for that assertion. You also seem to be suggesting that the contractors were given special dispensation to continue to use the old colours (so more 70/71 was specially ordered for them?) because they were unfamiliar with the formulation for RLM81? That seems very unlikely in late-war Germany, where considerable effort was expended in ensuring that production was not allowed to be interrupted for any reason. I've just finished reading a review of Panther tanks on the Eastern Front that's an armour modellers nightmare! Ausf As with turret fittings from earlier and later versions on the same chassis. The manufacturers used what they had to hand at the time. Remember also that the RLM had specifically ordered that the old colours were not to be used after existing stocks had been exhausted. The evidence we have is that the wings were painted in both the 'old' colours and the 'new' ones. It seems to me to be entirely reasonable to propose that that old paint was used first, then newer paint (colours) when that was exhausted. Sorry Vincent, but Occam's razor applies here - the simplest explanation for a given situation (and that requiring the least speculation and the fewest assumptions) is the most likely to be correct. Padraic
  13. That'll be what I would call 'a good six footer' . A standard that I also aspire to...
  14. I believe that there are 2 issues in this debate about accuracy: one gets more attention than the other. The first (and most obvious) issue is the relative faithfulness of the model representation we see compared to, or measured against, our understanding of reality. So dimensions, markings, weathering, colours, modifications, Liberator turrets and wing profile all fall into this. The second (and less well recognised) issue is our individual tolerance of what we perceive as departures or shortfalls within the model vs reality. Having spent some time studying personality types in my academic life, I firmly believe that we are all hardwired by personality type in terms of our tolerance to accuracy shortfalls. Some personality types cannot tolerate any perceived shortfalls, others are far more able to live with them. And all variations in between. Because its a personality issue, the often very animated debates and arguments on modelling websites about the accuracy of Model X usually achieve very little (other than lots of time wasted and occasionally amusing, or more often rude, comments). Hence the 49 pages of comments about the Hobbyboss B-24. My point is that we all can find it very difficult to suspend our strongly held views and see the world (or a model) as others do. And their (different to our) views are just as firmly held. I also believe that we self-select in terms of modelling forums (fora?) according to our personality types. You can fill in the blanks here about the 'relatively relaxed' vs 'tend towards fixed views' modelling sites (and sometimes specific posters! ). I know I used to spend most of my modelling Internet time somewhere else, but eventually simply couldn't continue. MUCH more comfy here.
  15. That's the Ju290 'Alles Kaputt' flown across the North Atlantic by Col Watson. Sadly I'm pretty sure that she had been repainted by the time this picture was taken.
×
×
  • Create New...